Venturing into the unknown future ---A future that may or may not come ---Part 1 --- Installment 3

Road to 2012 by Dennis L. Pearson

(c) 2008/2009/2010/2011 by Dennis L. Pearson All Rights Reserved --- No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission from the author.

Hate speech in the United State directed toward certain individuals and groups is forbidden and made illegal ... And its scope has been expanded in October 2009 by the addition of new law outlawing acts of violence against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people to the listof federal hate crimes. Congress passed the hate crimes protections as an unlikely amendment to fiscal year 2010's Defense Authorization Act. A rather sneaky, underhanded and cowardly way to pass controversial social policy in my supposedly unenlightened mind. Criticsof the Matthew Sheppard/ James Byrd Jr. Legislation, including several Republican congressional leaders, argued that an attack against another person is an attack,regardless of motivation, and that no special categories are appropriate...In regard to the repeal of the "Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy in the military, Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, a group opposed to repeal said: "The annual Defense Authorization Act should be used to strengthen our armed forces, not to provide politicalpayoffs to liberal constituency groups. " Then added in regard to the 2011 Defense Authorization Act ; "We are grateful that 43 responsible senators rejected this self-serving attempt to force a pre-election vote on legislation that would have imposed an LGBT policy on our military, authorized abortions in military hospitals, and circumvented orderly systems for legal immigration.

However, former Presidential Candidate John Kerry, Democratic Senator from Massachusetts feels differently: Today a Republican filibuster blocked funding for our troops and blocked efforts supported by our military brass to end outdated policies that force service members into the shadows or reject them entirely from serving their country. Gay and lesbian Americans are forced to lie about who they are, and patriotic youth who want to enlist are barred from service simply because they were brought to this country illegally as children. That's wrong."

But Dennis Kennethsson upon reading this said: " If Kerry's intent simply was to repeal outdated service policies he should have authored a separate bill rather than jeopardizing the Defense Authorization Bill by adding social policy provisions that had nothing to deal withDefense Program allocation. Clearly, the good Senator must have believed that he had a better chance passing this social policy agenda when included in this bill then separately. He couldn't phantom that opponents despite the importance of passing these allocations would votedown the bill simply because this social policy agenda was included."

Then too, Gordon Gordonsson in a newspaper article said a veteran 82nd Airborne Army officer signed on with Defense Secretary Gates' and Military Chief of Staff Admiral Mullen's opinions that DADT should be abolished. His claim was that The Uniform Code of Military Justice isquite capable of dealing with any misbehavior of soldiers. He added that DADT is an insult to those who have served honorably and been discharged because of their sexual preference.But as Elaine Donnelly notes, the military is a strong institution, that is in fact subject to civilian control and that makes it vulnerable to political pressures from civilian activist groups that do not understand the military's unique culture and mission. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Barack Obama tried to use the defense bill to score political points with LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) activists and other groups they are countingon to get re-elected. And it is clearly possible that Secretary Gates and Chief of Staff Admiral Mullen must answer to them and in public might be subject to follow the party line.

Yet another veteran military voice expresses the following perspective on the issue: "The whole 'Don't ask don’t tell' is ridiculous. As a veteran who served many years side byside with gay, lesbian, and bi-sexual Soldiers; I feel it's unconstitutional. Soldiering is Soldiering, it doesn't matter what race, age, or gender you are. Is there some kind ofstatistical information that the Senate is not showing us? Do gay Soldiers not fire weapons the same as heterosexual Soldiers? Do gay bi-sexual Soldiers die differently in war? And lastly, do lesbian Soldiers lead their Soldiers differently? The answer is no, not they do not. I’d like to see them ask the Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airman to vote on it. The individuals it willactually matter to. Not some prudes in the Senate who have not fought a day of their life for the country we live in. Funny thing is, if they asked service members to point out who is gay, lesbian, or bi-sexual; they would point out each one easily. You work, fight, and live with someone for 365 days a year you end up knowing more than their families."

However, Dennis Kennethsson believes; "If the homosexual community chooses to practicehomosexuality in privacy, that is their free choice. But let such persons know for certain that the Christian Bible condemns all such practices.

Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers"

Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another,men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

And also, Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."

In the end, Kennethsson understands that it is not up to Secular society or the religious society to execute the final penalty of the sin that homosexuality represents upon those who continue to practice and openly promote homosexuality. Rather, That final judgment lies with God

If we follow the teachings of Jesus we know that Homosexuality is a sin not a genetic inheritance or a disease, That the best remedy is to show kindness and love towardhomosexuals not hate ... But Christians and society ought not error by taking the attitude thathomosexuality is an acceptable alternative life style .

Indeed we live in difficult times and 2 Timothy 3: 1-15 is specific in spelling out the following:

But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come.

For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy.

treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather then lovers of God.

Holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power. Avoid such men as these.

Of interest. hate speech directed toward former President George W. Bush is politically correct in the mindset of the liberal/progressive coalition domestically and the socialist/Marxist agenda world wide ... It goes without saying that these groups would feel comfortablepouring out their venom and hate at an institutionalized and ritualized hate speech session two minutes a day every day of the year ... To them there is no difference between George Bush and Emmanuel Goldstein and for that matter Adolph Hitler.It can be said, that in Iraq the American Surge worked ... Can we say that all acts of violence and terrorism have been eliminated in Iraq ... No ... But conditions are much better there now than before the Surge started. And, theformer Bush Administration can show comfort by the fact that during December 2009 no American combatants in the Iraq theatre of war had died there due to enemy action.

Can we say that any sign of weakness and resolve by the Obama Administration might entice the Al-Qaeda and the militias to regroup and renew the violence in Iraq as the Taliban regrouped and surged in Afghanistan? Not guaranteed but possible. Will a surge in American troops work in Afghanistan as it did in Iraq? Maybe ... At a Society of ProfessionalJournalists Convention held at Indianapolis, Indiana in the fall of 2009, two war correspondences were asked a question related to a piece of equipment whose bulk virtually sucked up the damage that a road bomb could do in Iraq and thus help in reducing American deaths and injuries. The question was, could this weapon if utilized in Afghanistan lead to the same results. Their answer was Maybe ... In Iraq considering its flat terrain the weapon was a big help. But in Afghanistan which is more mountainous and the hilly , the bulkiness of the equipment could be a liability. The enemy constantly tries to make their bomb devises much stronger, and on the mountain hills and passes, the enemy if unsuccessful in destroyingthe mass of the equipment might be successful in causing the equipment to become unstable and tip over in ambushes, presenting a new danger to the troops...Again the question is asked will a Surge of American troops work in Afghanistan as it did in Iraq? There is no doubt that the much more rugged terrain of Afghanistan could make that task more difficult. The Strategy mayonly work if the game plan or book is rewritten to add new plays, perhaps more creative ones to the existing ones that already are part of the plan.Vice President Joe Biden , ever a team player, apparently thinks that Obama has such a new approach. Developing a new course of action for Afghanistan that is vastly different than that of George W. Bush, Quotes Biden: " Last night, President Obama laid out his plan to defend our national interest by refocusing our efforts on three clear goals: defeating al Qaeda, stabilizing Pakistan, and breaking the Taliban's momentum in Afghanistan....To achieve these goals, the President hasauthorized the rapid deployment of 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan, with a firm commitment to begin bringing our troops home in 2011."

But Biden also evokes the mindset of the liberal/progressive coalition, when he pours more fire on the legacy of former Bush Administration with the following claim: It's a clean break from the failed Afghanistan policy of the Bush administration, and a new, focused strategy that can succeed. Our new strategy ends the era of blank checks for Afghanistan's leaders,facilitates a responsible transition to Afghan security forces, and begins bringing our troops home in 2011. Not so fast Mr. Vice President, some of the media may disagree ... And present sound arguments of concern in regard to the Administration's Afghanistan proposals andits present cost.Ironically--- The following media statements in regard to the announced Obama Surge was made in the context of Obama deciding to employ additional American soldiers in Afghanistan upon the advice of his General in Charge General Stanly McChrystal. A decision announced at the West Point Military Academy Tuesday, December 1, 2009, about nine days before the President received his peace award at Oslo, Norway....Alex Newman an American freelance writer and the president of Liberty Sentinel Media, Inc., a small mediaconsulting firm who was currently living in Sweden cynically commented in the following report:"President Barack Obama drew fire from across the political spectrum — even from die-hard supporters — after he announced another “surge” Tuesday... With a straight face, Obama told the nation and his audience at West Point military academy that sending 30,000 moreUnited States troops to fight in the undeclared Afghanistan conflict was somehow in America’s “vital national interest.” ....Of course, that is nonsense. Obama himself knows that. And the people know too, judging by the polls. But much of the rest of the president’s speech was also a carefully concocted sham designed to dupe the public. In fact, upon examination, some of his comments and reasoning almost seem ridiculous. But nevertheless, the Commander-in-Chief has decided to send more American soldiers and an unknown number of “contractors" to theirdeaths in central Asia‘s infamous “graveyard of empires.”He mentioned al-Qaeda more than 20 times throughout the speech, when it is now widely accepted that there are less than 100 men in all of Afghanistan who could be considered members. The Washington Post reported thenews last month. Obama has obviously been briefed, and even his national security adviser Jim Jones admitted to CNN in October that the “maximum estimate” was "fewer than a hundred." He also noted that the fighters had no ability to attack America or its allies.ABC news did the calculations after Tuesday’s speech, concluding that “for every one al Qaeda fighter, the U.S.will commit 1,000 troops and $300 million a year.” That doesn’t even count troops and resources from other countries. Based on these figures, an uninformed observer might very well conclude that these ragged and elusive men living in caves and clutching AK-47s were thought to have super-human abilities.

“I do not make this decision lightly,” Obama claimed during his speech. “I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda.” Who could forget Pakistan? Thepresident alluded several times to the nation, where the Central Intelligence Agency has been dropping bombs from unmanned drones on alleged militants for years. Presumably the bombings will continue.Intelligence estimates put the number of supposed al-Qaeda in the region at around 300, though Pakistanis are becoming increasingly fed up with U.S. operations in the country (their parliament has already told the U.S. to cut it out). But since there is essentially no more “al Qaeda” in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, President Obama announced that he would pursue them “elsewhere” as well, from Somalia to Yemen. In other words, endless war, anywhere.

“As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service,” Obama acknowledged Tuesday. Of course, he never really defined the mission at all, let alone clearly. And aside from vague platitudes and various lies, he never explainedwhy it was worthy of the sacrifice either.

Even people who used to believe in the mission, individuals who risked their lives for it, have since abandoned the Afghanistan debacle. "I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan," wrote Matthew Hoh, the former Senior Civilian Representative for the U.S. government in Kabul province, in hisresignation letter. "I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end."

Obama’s loyal supporters have also been infuriated by his attitude towards the war, and especially by this latest announcement. MoveOn.org, traditionally one of the presidents staunchest allies, sent out a letter to supporters urging them to petition Congress to end the war, ASAP. Internal polls revealed that most of their left-wing, Obama-supporting members were opposed to this latest surge.

Even liberal MSNBC host Rachel Maddow criticized the announcement, comparing Obama’s strategy to the infamous “Bush Doctrine” of pre-emptive warfare. Using a graph, Maddow charted American troop levels in Afghanistan since the beginning of the conflict, showingclearly that the Nobel peace prize-winning Commander-in-Chief was indeed the new “war president.” Upon taking office, about 30,000 U.S. troops occupied Afghanistan.After Obama’s newest “surge,” that number will be close to 100,000.

Obama’s strategy is also being condemned by warmongering Republicans as well, like Senator John McCain, who criticized the alleged time table for beginning a withdrawal. “Dates for withdrawal are dictated by conditions,” said McCain. “The way that you win wars is to break the enemy’s will, not to announce dates that you are leaving.” He actually has a point: the announcement of a deadline seems rather stupid considering the supposed aims of the war, since now rebels know that they just need to hold out for one day longer than the foreignsoldiers remain in their country.

Libertarians and constitutionalists also criticized the plan, obviously. Cato’s director of foreign policy studies Christopher Preble called Obama’s speech “full of internal contradictions.” On Fox Business, Ron Paul called it “a bit misleading,” noting that “Obama is actually preparing us for perpetual war.” He pointed out that there is really no way America can continue paying for this, adding that it would “bring us down” if America does not stop. His proposal: coming home. “We’re following this precept of perpetual war for perpetual peace, and to meit’s perpetual bankruptcy,” Paul said. “How many more people have to die for us to save face?”

A Taliban spokesman cited by the media, however, did not complain about Obama’s “surge,” he merely pointed out the obvious: "The extra 30,000 troops that will come to Afghanistan will provoke stronger resistance and fighting.” As Matthew Hoh pointed out, the people ofAfghanistan see themselves as battling a foreign occupier, so the more occupiers that arrive, the more death and destruction will ensue.

Obama is following with remarkable similarity the failed strategy pursued by the Soviet Union — surges and all. The irony of him receiving the now-discredited peace prize days after announcing the war escalation would be shocking if it were not for the incredible amounts ofdouble speak Americans are subjected to every day. U.S. troops should come home immediately, and they should never again be forced to risk their lives anywhere withouta constitutional Congressional declaration of war. And Obama voters should work especially hard at the next election to oust the man who lied to the nation, over and over and over again, along with all of his congressional enablers."

And if one critical view is not enough, then the following commentary by Eric Margolis in the Huffington Post of December 8, 2009 entitled "Obama's Surge" may give more insight or satisfaction :"There were no surprises last week in President Barack Obama's historic speech at West Point. His decision to enlarge and prolong the war in Afghanistan had been leaked well in advance.The ugly, messy conflict Obama inherited from George W. Bush now belongs to the "peace president" and his unhappy party. President Obama faced a choice between guns -- $1trillion for the next decade of warfare in Afghanistan -- or butter -- his $1 trillion national health plan. The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate chose guns. What Obama should really have been concerned with was Osama bin Laden's vow to first bleed the US in Afghanistan and Iraq, then break America's domination of the Muslim world by luring it into a final battle in Pakistan,a nation of 175 million. The president also heard alarms from his field commanders and CIA that Taliban and its allies were taking control of much of Afghanistan and threatening thebig cities. As US Afghan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal warned, the mighty US faced defeat at the hands of lightly armed mountain tribesmen -- the same humiliating fate that befell the Soviet Union.So, as expected, Obama will rush 30,000 new troops into the Afghan quagmire, and arm-twist reluctant NATO allies to contribute 10,000 more token forces.Obama, with his eye on the Afghan War's growing unpopularity among Americans, confusingly promised some of the 105,000 US garrison will begin withdrawing in 2011. But Obama's aides almost immediately began backtracking on this pledge, which made no military sense at all. Senator John McCain and fellow Republican hawks had a field day shredding the daft proposal.Afghans, however, listened and concluded that the US, like the Soviets, would one day decamp. Those Afghans working for the US will quickly begin hedging their bets by making discreet side deals with Taliban, as they did with the mujahidin during the Soviet era.The president insisted his objective remains destroying al-Qaida. But al-Qaida hardly exists in Afghanistan. Only ahandful remain in Pakistan, likely no more than a dozen men.

President Obama's insincerity on this issue is very disturbing, undermining his reputation for veracity and clear thinking.There is also concern that when Obama targets al-Qaida,his real target may be Pakistan. Obama's plan mirrors the Bush administration's Iraq'surge' that candidate Obama sharply criticized. US Marines may even go and crush rebellious Kandahar the way Iraq's Fallujah was laid waste.The Soviets also tried the same surge tactic in the mid 1980's during their Afghan occupation. They also decidedto pull back their over-extended troops and concentrate them defending Afghanistan's major cities and main roads from Afghan "terrorists." Both strategies failed miserably.Now the US is trying the same thing. Tragically, the "anti-war president" missed another majoropportunity to end the Afghan War through negotiations.Anyone who understands Afghanistan's deep complexities knows that Obama's surge won't win the eight year war.Afghanistan's 15-million strong Pashtuns tribal majority will continue to resist Western occupation. Waging colonial wars of pacification against resident populations has proven futile time after time.

At best, it will be an exercise in managing a failed policy. Americans are turning against the war. Congress is fretting over its mounting costs: US $300 billion for 2009 in a $1.4 trillion deficit year. This war is being waged on money borrowed from China. Some Democrats are rightly calling for a special war taxon all Americans rather than continuing to conceal thewar's huge expenses on the national credit card.It costs US $1 million to keep each American soldier in Afghanistan. Renting Pakistan's assistance will cost $3 billion per year (overt and black payments combined). Thousands of US troops will remain stuck in Iraq where the underground Ba'ath Party is showing signs of life. President Obama vowed at West Point to fight al-Qaida in Africa and Asia. No wonder many angry, betrayed Democrats are calling him "George Bush's third term. "The most positive interpretation of President Obama's"surge" is that it is a face-saving exercise to cover America's retreat from the Afghan morass.The key to US strategy is cobbling together a large Afghan army and police led by the US military -- the modern version of the British Raj's native troops under white officers. The Soviets also tried to build a 260,000 man Afghan Communist army, but failed. The US will beno more successful as its Afghan forces are mostly minority Tajik and Uzbek mercenaries.Efforts will be made to sanitize the corrupt Karzai government and its mafia-like warlords. This, too, will fail, but Obama's hope is that he can declare victory by 2011. This would allow substantial US troop reductions before the next mid-term and presidential elections - if all goes well.

But things are not going well in Pakistan, without whose cooperation, bases, and supply routes the US cannot wage war in Afghanistan. The US-backed Pakistani government of Asif Ali Zardari is awash with corruption charges, condemned by the public as a puppet regime, and may soon be ousted by Pakistan's military. Most Pakistanis support Taliban, see US occupation ofAfghanistan as driven by lust for oil, and increasingly fear the US intends to tear their unstable nation apart in order to seize its nuclear arsenal. CIA-funded assassination teams have joined Predator drones in killing Pakistanis judged hostile to US interests.Obama's advisors have convinced him an early US withdrawal from Afghanistan will provoke chaos in Pakistan. They don't understand that it is the US-led war in Afghanistan that is destabilizing Pakistan and creating ever more anti-western extremism. The longer US forces wage war in Afghanistan, the more the conflict will spread into Pakistan, where 15% of its people, and 25% of its military, are Pashtuns who sympathize with their beleaguered fellow Taliban Pashtuns in Afghanistan.A grimmer view is that Obama has fallen under the influence of military-financial interests, and Washington's rabid neocons who seek permanent war against the Muslim world. Obama's "surge" may only expand, intensify, and prolong the Afghan conflict. In the end, there will be a negotiated peace that includes Taliban. But how many Americans, allies and Afghans must die before it comes?"

Then too, the following article found in the Australian of February 19, 2009, less than one month in the Obama President underlies the point that from the onset, the Obama Administration was confronted with the reemergence of the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan:"US President Barack Obama will send 17,000 troops to Afghanistan in time for the Taliban's traditional spring offensive, as he launches an Iraq-style surge aimed at reversing the flagging fortunes of coalition forces battling militants there. Announcing the surge yesterday, Mr Obama said the increase was necessary to "stabilise a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires".

"The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and al-Qaida supports the insurgency and threatens America from its safe haven along the Pakistani border," he said. He recognised "the extraordinary strain this deployment places on our troops and military families", but thedeteriorating security situation in the region required "urgent attention and swift action".Last year was the deadliest for ordinary Afghans caught up in the fighting, the UN reported this week, with a 39 per cent increase in civilian deaths. Militants were to blame for 55 per cent of the 2118 civilian fatalities, while UN, NATO and Afghan forces accounted for 39 per cent,it found.

In Mr Obama's first significant troop deployment, one army and one marine brigade originally scheduled to go to Iraq will be sent to Afghanistan at the request of Defense Secretary Robert Gates. US officials said yesterday an additional 8000 marines would be on the ground by late April -- when the warmer weather heralded an escalation in fighting. An army brigade of 4000 soldiers would follow in the northern summer, along with an extra 5000 support troops. The additional troops will be stationed in southern Afghanistan, where the fighting has been heaviest. The decision comes ahead of a review of US strategic policy in Afghanistan, which is expected to recommend that troop numbers on the ground be increased to 60,000 from the current estimated 38,000 troops fighting militant extremists in the south Asian nation.

A review of US military operations in Iraq, due in the next few weeks, is expected to recommend a corresponding drawdown of troops there as Mr Obama moves to fulfil his election promise to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. Mr Obama said the Iraq drawdown gave his administration the "flexibility to increase our presence in Afghanistan", adding the immediate troop surge announced yesterday did not preclude sending more forces.

Military force alone could not stop the spread of extremism in Afghanistan and his administration would develop a more comprehensive diplomatic approach toAfghanistan, he said.

Despite leaving the door open to negotiations with more moderate Taliban forces in Afghanistan, the US has taken a hard line against a peace deal struck this week between the Pakistan Government and extremists in the Swat Valley to allow Sharia law there. Mr Obama is yet to comment on the agreement, which has prompted local Taliban-linked militants to call atemporary ceasefire to months of bloody fighting in the Swat, but US and NATO officials have described the deal as a "negative development".

More than 1000 civilians have been killed and as many as 500,000 displaced in a vicious campaign waged by militants loyal to radical cleric Maulana Fazlullah for the imposition of a draconian Islamic legal code in the former tourist mecca.

The US argues that such peace deals allow militants to regroup and strengthen. Analysts have also warned that the agreement would encourage militants across Pakistan's now-vulnerableNorth Western Frontier Province to demand similar concessions.

Taliban and al-Qaida militants already control Pakistan's lawless Federally Administered Tribal Areas, which neighbour Afghanistan and serve as a base for launching cross-border attacks on US and NATO forces. And finally, another posting in the Huffington Post dated December 10, 2010 entitled "The Nine Surges of Obama's War: How to escalate in Afghanistan" written by Tom Engelhard: " In his Afghan "surge" speech at West Point last week, President Obama offered Americans some specifics to back up his new “way forward in Afghanistan.” He spoke of the “additional 30,000 U.S. troops” he was sending intothat country over the next six months. He brought up the “roughly $30 billion” it would cost us to get them there and support them for a year. And finally, he spoke of beginning to bring them home by July 2011. Those were striking enough numbers, even if larger and, in terms oftime, longer than many in the Democratic Party would have cared for. Nonetheless, they don’t faintly cover just how fully the president has committed us to an expanding war and just how wide it is likely to become. Despite the seeming specificity of the speech, it gave littlesense of just how big and how expensive this surge will be. In fact, what is being portrayed in the media as the surge of November 2009 is but a modest part of an ongoing expansion of the U.S. war effort in many areas. Looked at another way, the media's focus on thepresident’s speech as the crucial moment of decision, and on those 30,000 new troops as the crucial piece of information, has distorted what’s actually underway. In reality, the U.S. military, along with its civilian and intelligence counterparts, has been in an almost constantstate of surge since the last days of the Bush administration. Unfortunately, while information on this is available, and often well reported, it’s scattered in innumerable news stories on specific aspects of the war. You have to be a media jockey to catch it all, no less putit together. What follows, then, is my own attempt to make sense of the nine fronts on which the U.S. has been surging, and continues to do so, as 2009 ends. Think of this as aneffort to widen our view of Obama’s widening war. Obama’s Nine Surges:

1. The Troop Surge: Let’s start with those “30,000” new troops the president announced. First of all, they represent Obama’s surge, phase 2. As the president pointed out in his speech, there were “just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan” when he took office in January 2009. In March, Obama announced that he was ordering in 21,000 additional troops. Last week, when he spoke, there were already approximately 68,000 to 70,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. If you add the 32,000 already there in January and the 21,700 actually dispatched after the March announcement, however, you only get 53,700, leaving another 15,000 or so to be accounted for. According to Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post, 11,000 of those were “authorized in the waning days of the Bush administration and deployed thisyear,” bringing the figure to between 64,000 and 65,000. In other words, the earliest stage of the present Afghan “surge” was already underway when Obama arrived. It also looks like at least a few thousand more troops managed to slip through the door in recent months withoutnotice or comment. Similarly, with the 30,000 figure announced a week ago, DeYoung reports that the president quietly granted Secretary of Defense Robert Gates the right to “increase the number by 10 percent, or 3,000 troops, without additional White House approval orannouncement.” That already potentially brings the most recent surge numbers to 33,000, and an unnamed “senior military official” told De Young “that the final number could go as high as 35,000 to allow for additional support personnel such as engineers, medevac units and route-clearance teams, which comb roads for bombs.” Now, add in the 7,500 troops and trainers thatadministration officials reportedly strong-armed various European countries into offering. More than 1,500 of these are already in Afghanistan and simply not being withdrawn as previously announced. The cost of sending some of the others, like the 900-plus troops Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili has promised, will undoubtedly be absorbed by Washington. Nonetheless, add most of them in and, miraculously, you’ve surged up to, or beyond, Afghan War commander General Stanley McChrystal’s basic request for at least 40,000 troops to pursue a counterinsurgency war in that country.

2. The Contractor Surge: Given our heavily corporatized and privatized military, it makes no sense simply to talk about troop numbers in Afghanistan as if they were increasing in a void. You also need to know about the private contractors who have taken over so many formermilitary duties, from KP and driving supply convoys to providing security on large bases. There’s no way of even knowing who is responsible for the surge of (largely Pentagon-funded) private contractors in Afghanistan. Did their numbers play any part in the president’s three months of deliberations? Does he have any control over how many contractors are put on the U.S government payroll there? We don’t know.

Private contractors certainly went unmentioned in his speech and, amid the flurry of headlines about troops going to Afghanistan, they remain almost unmentioned in the mainstream media. In major pieces on the president’s tortuous “deliberations” with his key military and civilianadvisors at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times, all produced from copious officially inspired leaks, there wasn't a single mention of private contractors, and yet their numbers have been surging for months.

A modest sized article by August Cole in the Wall Street Journal the day after the president’s speech gave us the basics, but you had to be looking. Headlined “U.S.Adding Contractors at Fast Pace,” the piece barely peeked above the fold on page 7 of the paper. According to Cole: “The Defense Department's latest census shows that the number of contractors increased about 40% between the end of June and the end of September, for atotal of 104,101. That compares with 113,731 in Iraq, down 5% in the same period... Most of the contractors in Afghanistan are locals, accounting for 78,430 of the total...” In other words, there are already more private contractors on the payroll in Afghanistan than there will beU.S. troops when the latest surge is complete.

Though many of these contractors are local Afghans hired by outfits like DynCorp International and Fluor Corp., TPM Muckracker managed to get a further breakdown of these figures from the Pentagon and found that there were 16,400 “third country nationals” among the contractors, and 9,300 Americans. This is a formidable crew, and its numbers are evidently still surging, as are the Pentagon contracts doled out to private outfits that go with them. Cole, for instance, writes of the contract that DynCorp and Fluor share to support U.S. forces in Afghanistan “which could be worth as much as $7.5 billion to each company in the coming years.”

3. The Militia Surge: U.S. Special Forces are now carrying out pilot programs for a mini-surge in support of local Afghan militias that are, at least theoretically, anti-Taliban. The idea is evidently to create a movement along the lines of Iraq's Sunni Awakening Movement that,many believe, ensured the "success" of George W. Bush's 2007 surge in that country. For now, as far as we know, U.S. support takes the form of offers of ammunition, food, and possibly some Kalashnikov rifles, but in the future we'll be ponying up more arms and, undoubtedly, significant amounts of money. This is, after all, to be a national program, the CommunityDefense initiative, which, according to Jim Michaels of USA Today, will “funnel millions of dollars in foreign aid to villages that organize ‘neighborhood watch’-like programs to help with security.” Think of this as a “bribe” surge. Such programs are bound to turn out to be essentially money-based and designed to buy “friendship.”

4. The Civilian Surge: Yes, Virginia, there is a “civilian surge” underway in Afghanistan, involving increases in the number of “diplomats and experts in agriculture, education, health and rule of law sent to Kabul and to provincial reconstruction teams across the country.” TheState Department now claims to be “on track” to triple the U.S. civilian component in Afghanistan from 320 officials in January 2009 to 974 by “the early weeks of next year.” (Of course, that, in turn, means another mini-surge in private contractors: more security guards to protect civilian employees of the U.S. government.) A similar civilian surge is evidently underway in neighboring Pakistan, just the thing to go with a surge of civilian aid and a plan for a humongous new, nearly billion-dollar embassy compound to be built in Islamabad.

5. The CIA and Special Forces Surge: And speaking of Pakistan, Noah Shachtman of Wire's Danger Room blog had it right recently when, considering the CIA’s “covert” (but openly discussed) drone war in the Pakistani tribal borderlands, he wrote: “The most important escalation of the war might be the one the President didn’t mention at West Point.” In fact, the CIA’s drone attacks there have been escalating in numbers since the Obama administration came into office. Now, it seems, paralleling the civilian surge in the Af/Pak theater ofoperations, there is to be a CIA one as well. While little information on this is available, David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt of the New York Times reports that in recent months the CIA has delivered a plan to the White House “for widening the campaign of strikes against militants bydrone aircraft in Pakistan, sending additional spies there and securing a White House commitment to bulk up the C. I.A.’s budget for operations inside the country.” In addition, Scott Shane of the Times reports: “The White House has authorized an expansion of the C.I.A.’s drone program in Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas, officials said..., to parallel the president’s decision… to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. American officials are talking with Pakistan about the possibility of striking in Baluchistan for the first time -- a controversialmove since it is outside the tribal areas -- because that is where Afghan Taliban leaders are believed to hide.”

The Pakistani southern border province of Baluchistan is a hornet's nest with its own sets of separatists and religious extremists, as well as a (with possibly U.S. funded) rebel movement aimed at the Baluchi minority areas of Iran. The Pakistani government is powerfully opposed to drone strikes in the area of the heavily populated provincial capital of Quetta where, Washington insists, the Afghan Taliban leadership largely resides. If such strikes dobegin, they could prove the most destabilizing aspect ofthe widening of the war that the present surge represents.In addition, thanks to the Nation magazine’s Jeremy Scahill, we now know that, from a secret base in Karachi, Pakistan, the U.S. Army’s Joint Special Operations Command, in conjunction with the private security contractor Xe (formerly Blackwater), operates “a secret program in which they plan targeted assassinations of suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, ‘snatch and grabs’ of high-value targets and other sensitive actioninside and outside Pakistan.” Since so many U.S. activities in Pakistan involve secretive, undoubtedly black-budget operations, we may only have the faintest outlinesof what the “surge” there means.

6. The Base-Building Surge: Like the surge in contractors and in drone attacks, the surge in base-building in Afghanistan significantly preceded Obama's latest troop-surge announcement. A recent NBC Nightly News Report on the ever-expanding U.S. base at Kandahar Airfield, which it aptly termed a “boom town,”shows just how ongoing this part of the overall surge is, and at what a staggering level. As Iraq from 2003 on, billions of dollars are being sunk into bases, the largest of which -- especially the old Soviet site, Bagram Air Base,with more than $200 million in construction projects and upgrades underway at the moment -- are beginning to look like ever more permanent fixtures on the landscape. In addition, as Nick Turse of TomDispatch.com has reported, forward observation bases and smaller combat outposts have been sprouting all over southern Afghanistan. “Forget for a moment the ‘debates’ in Washington over Afghan War policy,” he wrote in early November, “and, if you just focus on the construction activity and the flow of money into Afghanistan, what yousee is a war that, from the point of view of the Pentagon, isn't going to end any time soon. In fact, the U.S. military's building boom in that country suggests that, in the ninth year of the Afghan War, the Pentagon has plans for a far longer-term, if not near-permanent, garrisoning of the country, no matter what course Washington may decideupon.”

7. The Training Surge: In some ways, the greatest prospective surge may prove to be in the training of the Afghan national army and police. Despite years of American and NATO “mentoring,” both are in notoriously bad shape. The Afghan army is riddled with desertions --25% of those trained in the last year are now gone -- and the Afghan police are reportedly a hapless, ill-paid, corrupt, drug-addicted lot. Nonetheless, Washington (with the help of NATO reinforcements) is planning to bring an army whose numbers officially stand at approximately 94,000 (but may actually be as low as 40- odd thousand) to 134,000 reasonably well-trained troops by next fall and 240,000 a year later. Similarly, the Obama administration hopes to take Police numbers from an official 93,000 to 160,000.

8. The Cost Surge: This is a difficult subject to pin down in part because the Pentagon is, in cost-accounting terms, one of the least transparent organizations around. What can be said for certain is that Obama’s $30 billion figure won’t faintly hold when it comes to the real surge. There is no way that figure will cover anything like all the troops, bases, contractors, and the rest. Just take the plan to train an Afghan security force of approximately 400,000 inthe coming years. We’ve already spent more than on the training of the Afghan Army and more than $10 billion has gone into police training -- staggering figures for a far smaller combined force with poor results. Imagine, then, what a massive bulking up of the country's security forces will actually cost. In congressional testimony, Centcom commander General David Petraeus suggested a possible price tag of $10 billion a year. And if such a program works (which seems unlikely), try to imagine how one of the poorest countries on the planet will support a 400,000-man force. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has just suggested that it will take at least 15-20 years before the country can actually pay for such a force itself. In translation, what we have here is undoubtedly a version of Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn Rule (“You break it, you own it”); in this case, you build it, you own it. If we create such security forces, they will be, financially speaking, ours into the foreseeable future. (And this is even without adding in those local militias we’re planning to invest “millions” in.)

9. The Anti-Withdrawal Surge: Think of this as a surge in time. By all accounts, the president tried to put some kind of limit on his most recent Afghan surge, not wanting “an open-ended commitment.” With that in mind, he evidently insisted on a plan, emphasized in his speech, inwhich some of the surge troops would start to come home in July 2011, about 18 months from now. This was presented in the media as a case of giving something to everyone (the Republican opposition, his field commanders, and his own antiwar Democratic Party base). In fact, he gave his commanders and the Republican opposition a very real surge in numbers. Inthis regard, a Washington Post headline says it all: “McChrystal’s Afghanistan Plan Stays Mainly Intact.” On the other hand, what he gave his base was only the vaguest of promises (“…and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011”). Moreover, within hours of the speech, even that commitment was being watered down by the first top officials to speak on the subject. Soon enough, as the right-wing began to blaze away on the mistake of announcing a withdrawal date “to the enemy,” there was little short of a stampede of high officials eager to make that promise ever less meaningful. In what Mark Mazzetti of the Times called a “flurry ofcoordinated television interviews,” the top civilian andmilitary officials of the administration marched onto the Sunday morning talk shows “in lockstep” to reassure the right (and they were reassured) by playing “down the significance of the July 2011 target date.” The United States was, Secretary of Defense Gates and othersindicated, going to be in the region in strength for years tocome. (“...July 2011 was just the beginning, not the end, of a lengthy process. That date, [National Security Advisor] General [James] Jones said, is a ‘ramp’ ratherthan a ‘cliff.’”)

How Wide the Widening War?

When it came to the spreading Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, the president in his speech spoke of his surge goal this way: “We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government.” This seems a modest enough target, even if the means of reaching it are proving immodest indeed. After all, we’re talking about a minority Pashtuninsurgency -- Pashtuns make up only about 42% of Afghanistan’s population -- and the insurgents are a relatively lightly armed, rag-tag force. Against them and a miniscule of al-Qaeda operatives, the Pentagon has launched a remarkable, unbelievably costly build-up offorces over vast distances, along fragile, extended supply lines, and in a country poorer than almost any other on the planet. The State Department has, to the best of its abilities, followed suit, as has the CIA across the borderin Pakistan.

All of this has been underway for close to a year, with at least another six months to go. This is the reality that the president and his top officials didn’t bother to explain to the American people in that speech last week, or on those Sunday talk shows, or in congressional testimony,and yet it’s a reality we should grasp as we consider our future and the Afghan War we, after all, are paying for. And yet, confoundingly, as the U.S. has bulked up in Afghanistan, the war has only grown fiercer both withinthe country and in partsof Pakistan. Sometimes bulking-up can mean not reversing but increasing the other side’s momentum. We face what looks to be a widening war in the region. Already, the Obama administration has been issuing ever stronger warnings to the Pakistani government and military to shape up in the fight againstthe Taliban, otherwise threatening not only drone strikes in Baluchistan, but cross-border raids by Special Operations types, and even possibly “hot pursuit” by U.S. forces into Pakistan. This is a dangerous game indeed.

As Andrew Bacevich, author of The Limits of Power, wrote recently, “Sending U.S. troops to fight interminable wars in distant countries does more to inflame than to extinguish the resentments giving rise to violent anti-Western jihadism.” Whatever the Obama administration does in Afghanistan and Pakistan, however, the American ability to mount a sustained operation of this size in one of the most difficult places on the planet, when it can’t even mount a reasonable jobs program at home, remains a strange wonder of the world.

In analysis, what was pictured above is not a prettypicture ... Considering what has happened to oureconomy have we overreacted to a real tragedy that befell the American people on September 11, 2001 ... It may have been right to go into Afghanistan to root out those responsible for the attack ... It may even have been right to go into Iraq to root out the dangers there ... We were correct to do it if it were in our national interest ...But one wonders whether in the course of fighting the battle on many fronts at one time have we lessened or enhanced the threats to our national security interests .. The fact is, Our national security actions as we write have not yet planted the Oak Tree which would bring everlasting peace and well-being for the U.S. and the World. Although the War in Iraq seemingly at the moment is winding down, the war in Afghanistan is getting hot. We continue fuss over Iran's Nuclear threat and Al-Qaida always seeks to run to new sanctuaries to continue their plans against U.S. interests .... And then the earthquake in Haiti causing the deployment of more troops ...Of course, historically Haiti has seen the presence of American Forces before ... Throughout the Bush Administration the Democratic leaders according to Conservative pundits have always talked defeat, comparing our recent foreign wars to Vietnam ... We also have seen in Congressional behavior,the bait and switch tactic ... That is call for the Bush Administration to pursue a certain approach to the situation as it prevailed in Iraq or Afghanistan, and once the Administration responded positively to their demands but not immediately, they switched gears once againattacking the administrations and calling for a new approach. The moral here is that it is very dangerous to pursue foreign war when the political parties for the most part trivialize such foreign adventures by playing politics. Obama, as a President who had very little experience inworld diplomacy before taking office, has been severely tested .... And that test will continue until such time the Sun sets on his Presidency ... And the good citizens of the U.S. trust as well that the Sunset of the Obama Presidency would not also be their own Sunset as well. We give this warning for those that desire wisdom and truth ... Let no one deceive you with shallow arguments and weak understanding. For, it is for those reasons that the problems we face have occurred. Take no part in the desperate act of deception that those who failed us continue to orchestrate. But rather, show them up for what they are. The things they wish the publicnot to remember is like a mark of darkness descending upon their entire being; and we the public should deserve better respect than that . The fact is, unlike Iraq, Obama's government owns the consequences of the frustrating situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan; As indicated before, the Obama Administration accepted 4 Star General Stanley McCrystal's recommendation of sending more American troops to Afghanistan to battle the renewed insurgency for the Afghanistan Karzai government until their security forces are completelyready to lead security operations across the country. McCrystal actually wanted more troops than the 30,000 the Obama Administration eventually agreed to. And surely, must have been concerned that Obama time dated the operation by establishing July 31, 2011 as the date ofthe initial American troop reduction in Afghanistan. Of course, by following this timetable exactly, there would be no guarantee that Afghan security forces would be place to pick up the pieces when the American troops begin to leave. And additionally, it didn't help that theAdministration placed certain restrictions on how military operations would be conducted. And as it occurred McCrystal and his staff eventually questioned the Commander in Chief's and the Vice President's mind set in understanding the possible adverse consequences of their directives. And McCyrstal got in hot water with the President after these feeling appeared in a Rolling Stone magazine article. The fact is, McCrystal got in so much hot water with the President that he was replaced as Commander of the U.S Forces in Afghanistan by JohnPratraeus the author of the action in Iraq. Ironically, as U.S. Senator from Illinois, Obama had attacked Pratraeus's surge proposal in Iraq as futile and said it would not work... Now Obama praised Pratraeus as the man best able to pursue the Surge in Afghanistan. But what about the Obama Administration time table forwithdrawal of forces from the surge ... A majorconference on Afghanistan held in mid July 2010 and attended by 70 countries has raised more questions than answers ... Conferees endorsed Afghan President HamidKarzai's goal that Afghan forces should lead security operations across the country by 2014. A very ambitious security target since insurgents still control much of Afghanistan. Obviously transition to Afghan-led security must be based on conditions not calendars. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the US would accelerate the process of turning over security toAfghanistan's police and military from July 2011. She emphasised this was not the end of US involvement, adding the US military commitment to Afghanistan would be matched by an unprecedented civilian surge ineconomic development.

And on another matter, the Obama Administration owns the diplomatic fallout and security headaches resultant from its decision not to honor the U.S. Commitment to field missile defense interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic.

Please note --- Gay rights activists not content or fully satisfied with the landmark initial federal law included within a defense authorization bill voiced hope that the Obama administration would advance more issues on their agenda, including legislation to bar workplace discrimination, allow military service and recognize same-sex marriages... Of course, the recognition of same-sex marriage most certainly in the end the most controversialof issues on the gay/lesbian menu plate. According to TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty, Obama, continues to talk out of both sides of his mouth on the same-sex marriage issue. Said Lafferty: "When he was discussing gay marriage with Pastor Rick Warren before the election, he expressed support for traditional marriage. Clearly, he didn’t mean it. Now, he’s admittinghe wants to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act."President Obama gave a keynote speech at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) dinner on October 10, 2009 --- the evening before a Lesbian/Gay/Bi-sexual/Transgender march on Washington, D.C..What he said is the following:"My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians — whether in the office or on the battlefield. You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between twomen or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman. You will see a nation that’s valuing and cherishing these families as we build a more perfect union — a union in which gay Americans are an important part. I am committed to thesegoals. And my administration will continue fighting to achieve them."

During the same speech, Obama praised the StonewallRiot, which launched the gay activist movement in 1969. He described the Stonewall Riot this way: It’s the story of the Stonewall protests, when a group of citizens — when a group of citizens with few options, andfewer supporters stood up against discrimination and helped to inspire a movement. But the Traditional Values Coalition believes that Obama’s history is wrong about the Stonewall Riot. They claim what he’s celebrating is a drag queen riot that took place outside of a sleazy Mafia-owned gay bar in New York City. Police had entered the establishment over liquor license violations. The drag queens inside rebelled against the police and began throwing rocks, bottles, trash cans and whatever else they could find in the streets to injure the police officers.As a result of this riot, the Gay Liberation Front was born and lesbians, gays, bisexuals, drag queens, and transsexuals have been agitating for their supposed “rights” ever since. But you know what, God still speaks to us ... The question is, are we reading his lips?

GOD STILL SPEAKS TO US By Dennis L. Pearson of The COMMON SENSE HERALD (c) 2003 by Dennis L. Pearson ... All Rights Reserved

The Old Testament (and the New Testament) speaks to the USA as much as it did to ancient Israel. If we allow the atheists, the false believers and the secular humanists to force the USA to turn its face from God, God will respond by taking our blessing away from us. He will allow the enemy to come to our gates and do great damage to us. We look at world history and see that empires have risen and fallen. Kingdoms have risen and fallen. Nations have risen and fallen. Obviously the USA can share the same fate if the eternal God turns his face from us because we have decided that we are a government and a people above God rather than underGod. And additionally, we have decided that we are a government and a people that no longer place our trust in God or have become so arrogant that we think that we do not need God’s potent forced field or shield.

We need to remind ourselves that God gives us the stewardship to rule and we must do it wisely. In ancient Israel God replaced King Saul with David because King Saul abused his power and sinned. He did not allow David to build the temple because he sinned. He did not allowMoses to enter the Promised Land because he sinned. Take God out of society and wickedness will flourish; therefore for the good of the nation it is essential that we remember that his values are superior to ours.

We read at the beginning of the New year , an opinion in a newspaper from an individual who described himself as non-religious. He said It is very heartening that, during the period between the end of the year and the beginning of the year, agnostics, atheists and Humanists be recognized and accepted. Then he defined Humanism as a way of thinking about living a good and moral life without the need to believe in God, or other supernatural deities. Acknowledging that Humanists can be atheists, agnostics or even religious Humanists. Than making it known that at the present time many Unitarian Universalist congregations can be described as Humanists. It also being recognized, that Unitarian Universalist Congregations in the religious community are one of the most so-called progressive congregations and as suchdefine a good and moral life differently than some of the Main Steam and Conservative religious conservative congregations.

We trust that (Secular) Humanists live rather than just think about living a good and moral life. If they lead a good and moral life there will be a measure of congeniality and interaction with the religious community especially the Unitarian Universalist Congregations. However, If the atheists, agnostics, the false believers, the secular humanists, and even the religious humanists believe that citizens can be safe in a nation, which, having no eternal values to set its standards creates its own values, then they all are deluding themselves. For in sucha society the standards for morality will change from day to day and morality will be ordered like a fad. What is in for morality one day, one week, one month, one year or one decade will be out the next day, next week, next month, next year or next decade. And we of the religiouscommunity ought not lower our standards for behavior that is scripturally not supportable.The writer in the same letter to the editor mentioned above offers that the simple act of saying Merry Christmas constitutes divisive rhetoric ... That we all should find ways to break down religious barriers and start cooperating with each other on a human level ... Unfortunately, if religious people must sublimate the reason why they Celebrate Christmas to appease thosewho place their faith, in the basic, inherent goodness of your fellow human being, then they lose sight of the fact that this basic , inherent goodness of your fellow human being exists only because Jesus Christ died on the Cross for our sins ...Indeed, the federal government cannot promote a statereligion ... The early German speaking immigrants to theU.S were much concerned about this for In their homelands they were told by their ruling prince what religion they were to practice. Consequently, many families have their origins in America due to the persecution of France's Louis XIV who invaded the Duchy of Lorraine and provinces of the Holy Roman Empire (now Southwest Germany).. These people had to convert to Catholicism or die or the very least have their property taken away and be enslaved. Emigration of Protestants was forbidden. However many Protestants did convert to Catholicism with the aim to emigrate if they could and then return to their reformed Christian or Lutheran faith.

Incredibly in the period during and after the 30 Years War and Louis XIV’s incursions – that part of the Holy Roman Empire which later became Southwest Germany lost approximately 90 percent of its population by death or emigration ... It took the economy of the area 120 yearsto recover.

As far as I am concerned posting the 10 commandments is not the establishment of a state religion. Singing the 4th Stanza of the National Anthem is not the establishment ofa state religion. Saying the pledge of allegiance is not the establishment of a state religion.

However, adopting an official atheist policy in government is a violation of the Church State principle by adopting secular humanism as a state approved religion. Indeed in the United State, government cannot force an individual to adhere to a certain religious way of life but neither can government force an individual to cease adhering to a certain religious way of life.Indeed the laws of government are affected by the pressures put on by those who adhere to or not adhere to a certain religious way of life. And people in that society are expected to submit to the laws of the land. But for those who practice the religious way of life, their guide formorality will be in the time-honored writings and traditions of their faith which ought to be accord with eternal law established by the Creator of the Universe."

And we add to the above writings, most assuredly, the agenda of the lesbian/gay/bi-sexual and transgender coalition and the moral values it applies, may not necessarily jive with the moral values given to us by God over the ages. It is reported of Jesus Christ that he lovedthe sinner but hated the sin ... Let not new federal law put those who profess Jesus Christ's admonition in their public words whether in the Church or in public be placed in jeopardy because of their beliefs.